Talk:Watchmaker analogy

This article should not include the word "pseudoscience"

The Watchmaker analogy is not intended to be a scientific argument, but is an analogous philosophical argument. To call it pseudoscience is dishonest, implies an atheistic bias, and begins the article by pushing that particular viewpoint on the reader. As per Wikipedia's NPOV principle this article should present the analogy in a neutral way which favours neither theists or atheists. Therefore, the Watchmaker analogy should be stated neutrally to be that which it is, namely, an analogy which argues for the existence of God, or simply a philosophical argument. Boaziah (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is consensus in science that ID is pseudoscience. There was even a verdict in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District saying so. Look up Of Pandas and People, especially the part about "cdesign proponentsists". ID is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Fact. That has nothing to do with atheism.

Also, read the WP:FALSEBALANCE part of WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean what you think it means. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"It is consensus in science that ID is pseudoscience." According to who? There are many people, including scientists, which believe in intelligent design and don't believe it to be pseudoscience. Are they included in that consensus?

The holding of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the "Of Pandas and People" textbook are irrelevant. Again, your calling it "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" shows the atheistic bias here. Where is the neutrality in that statement? Boaziah (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

According to who? According to the sources quoted in the article intelligent design.

Your idea of neutrality is not the same as the one used in Wikipedia policy. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That page says "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."

Are there more theists or atheists in the world? More theists, and by a large margin.

If there are significantly more theists, we can assume that more people believe in intelligent design than those which don't.

Therefore, the denial of intelligence design would be the "fringe theory" here. Boaziah (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully: the particular field is biology. Within biology, only a tiny minority of hyper-religious nuts are ID fans. It does not matter how many laypeople are fooled by a fringe idea; climate change denial, for example, is fringe even though its proponents have bamboozled even more ignorant people than creationism did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"Hyper-religious nuts", how very neutral of you once again, definitely not showing any atheistic bias are you? Do you think Isaac Newton was a hyper-religious nut? Because he believed and taught intelligent design, and most people agree that he's one of the greatest scientists that ever lived. The creator of calculus would agree with me that intelligent design is a legitimate viewpoint, not a fringe theory. Boaziah (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

A hyper-religious nut is someone whose religion gets in the way of honesty and careful research. You do not need to be an atheist to recognize that. Francis Collins is the most well-known biologist who opposes ID.

Newton's religion did not get in the way of his physics. In other areas, yes, he was, but it was normal at the time.

he believed and taught intelligent design That is bullshit. ID was invented by Phillip E. Johnson. But creationists (that includes ID) love to misappropriate pre-Darwin scientists to their pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly this is casting pearls before swine. Boaziah (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggest reading the intelligent design article. Adakiko (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Why? Boaziah (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Because, if you lack knowledge, you should get it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you enjoy answering for other people? Boaziah (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You asked a question, you got an answer. This is not a forum, but it seems you are not here to improve the article but just to discuss for discussion's sake. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Projection. I'm here to improve the article by making it neutral and you're here to preach atheism. Boaziah (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that you first direct your concerns to Talk:Intelligent design as that's fundamentally where your dispute lies. I will caution you that many have tried and failed to do what you are trying to do and attempting such an enterprise will be a long, difficult road that almost certainly will not achieve your goal. Referring to ID as a pseudoscience will not be changed unless it is shown in the preponderance of reliable sources to be referred to as a legitimate field of scientific study. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like I shouldn't bother. Clearly Wikipedia has already been subverted, it stopped being neutral long ago. Oh well. Boaziah (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if people contradict you, it is never because you are wrong but because of some nefarious reasons. I know that attitude well, all creationists have it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You do not understand what "neutral" means in Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you an NPC? Boaziah (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Boaziah, believing that the current idea called "intelligent design" incorporates pseudoscience is not atheism. Many devout Christians are comfortable with modern views of science and of evolution. The Vatican observatory is happy to study the evolution of the universe from the big bang onward. Science, scientists, and religious beliefs have come very far since the publication of the watchmaker analogy in 1802. However people still choose the faith that makes them comfortable inhabiting this complicated existance of ours, but they should not try to impose their own beliefs or lack of beliefs on others. The analogy today is in the news mostly as part of current "intelligent design" arguments in opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools, and we can't ignore that.

Hob Gadling, I think the archiving of this talk page needs to be less agressive. It should follow the more usual style of keeping that last two discussions, whatever their age. That makes it easier for editors to understand how to start new discussions, and may avoid repeated discussions. I'm going to add "minkeepthreads=2". StarryGrandma (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you have to ask me about archiving. Also, I have a watchinglist and do not need pings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Vatican is Catholic, not Christian, but that's a different issue. The big bang and evolution are also different issues which are separate from the argument of intelligent design, but neither one has been observed so they're not science according to the scientific method. Evolution is a faith-based religion, nobody has ever seen one kind of animal become another kind of animal. Everything in nature produces after its kind as Genesis 1 teaches; dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, apple trees produce apple trees, and so on. That's called reproduction, a system of biology which we can observe and is therefore science. Intelligent design is also something we can observe, and the Watchmaker analogy is a fine illustration of its observation, so I wouldn't say it's pseudoscience. The only reason this article says it's pseudoscience is because Wikipedia has been subverted by biased atheists that don't want this to be a neutral site like it once was. Simply calling it an "argument" would be perfectly neutral as it has no implication about whether it is true or false, whereas calling it pseudoscience implies that it's false despite many people disagreeing with that notion. Boaziah (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say the analogy is pseudoscience. As for the rest, all I can say is I feel like I am back in the 1950's again. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Vatican is Catholic, not Christian This is getting crazier and crazier. Are you an NPC? Now that person thinks they are playing a fantasy game - that explains a lot. Next they will try to magic-missile me.

I will just wait until they are indeffed. Can't be long now. It never had much to do with improving the article anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Which subreddit are you a moderator of? Boaziah (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

On the topic of ID and pseudoscience

Hello all. I am not wont to argue against the well-established fact that "Intelligent Design" is pseudoscientific -- that much is not up for discussion. However, I find that the wording of this article severely obfuscates the historical, philosophical concept of the watchmaker analogy with the modern, pseudoscientific use as an argument against evolution.

These things ought not to be confused -- it is a great disservice to the discipline of natural theology for these arguments (which are not intended to be scientific) to be coopted by neo-creationists. In expounding the watchmaker analogy, we should establish an appropriate degree of separation between the analogy itself and its usurpation by pseuoscientists.

Because of this, I have just changed the first sentence to "The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument originating in natural theology, which is often used to argue for the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design." This establishes a distinction between the concept itself and its modern use, while not ignoring the troubling influence it has had in the ID movement. I have likewise modified the short description to reflect a more technical definition.

There are certainly more ways in which this article can be improved, but this change seemed most apparent and expedient to me. Mannana308 (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)